{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -APRIL 18, 2017--5:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:00 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and\nMayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(17-240) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode \u00a7 54956.9); Case Name: Boatworks V City of Alameda, et al.; Court: Superior\nCourt of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Number: RG16841240. Not\nheard.\n(17-241) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7\n54956.8); Property: Chuck Corica Golf Complex, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road,\nAlameda, CA 94502; City Negotiators: Jill Keimach, City Manager and Amy Wooldridge,\nRecreation and Parks Director; Organizations Represented: Greenway Golf Associates,\nInc.; Issue Under Negotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms of Payment\n(17-242) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to\nlitigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As\nDefendant - City Exposure to Legal Action)\n(17-243) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure\nto\nlitigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code;\nNumber of cases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action)\n(17-244) Public Employee Performance Evaluation Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7\n54957; Positions Evaluated: City Manager - Jill Keimach, City Attorney - Janet Kern and\nCity Clerk - Lara Weisiger\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced that regarding the four matters heard, direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:01 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -APRIL 18, 2017--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:07 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor\nSpencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(17-245) Mayor Spencer announced Site A is in default and a press release went out,\nwhich outlined the steps to cure.\n(17-246) Proclamation Declaring April 22, 2017 as Earth Day Alameda.\nMayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to Patrick Russi and Alameda\nHigh Earth Team.\nStated it is time to update the climate action plan: Sylvia Gibson, Community Action for\na Sustainable Alameda.\n(17-247) Proclamation Declaring April 28, 2017 as Arbor Day Alameda.\nMayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to the Public Works Coordinator.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(17-248) Vanessa Cooper, made an announcement regarding Stargell Commons grand\nopening.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced the Investment Policy [paragraph no. 17-251\u00b0 and the East\nBay Municipal Utility District agreement [paragraph no. 17-253 were removed from the\nConsent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 3, "text": "vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\n(*17-249) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on March 21, 2017.\nApproved.\n(*17-250) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,051,066.86.\n(17-251) Recommendation to Approve the City of Alameda Investment Policy.\nThe City Treasurer stated a ban on investing in Wells Fargo securities has been\nincorporated in the Investment Policy through 2020; current securities will be liquidated\nbefore the new fiscal year.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Treasurer stated the matter can be\nrevisited in 2020.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*17-252) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First\nAmendment to an Agreement with Akerman LLP for Federal Legislative Services\nExtending the Term for Three Years and Adding $90,000 Per Year, for a Total of\n$270,000. Accepted.\n(17-253) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Short Term\nAgreement with the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) to Provide Services for\nthe City of Alameda's Potable Water System at Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not recommend transitioning from\nEBMUD to an outside contractor; inquired what is the impetus for the recommendation.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded EBMUD does not typically provide operations\nand maintenance for a system that is not theirs but has been providing the service to\nthe City since the late 1990's through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA); the short term\nagreement extends the JPA for six months, which gives the City an opportunity to\nunderstand the legal, regulatory, and technical aspects of having another service\nprovider.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the primary consideration for seeking\nan alternative provider is because EBMUD does not do maintenance on facilities that\nare not their own, to which the Public Works Coordinator responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of authorizing the City Manager to\nexecute a short term agreement with the East Bay Municipal Utility District to provide\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 4, "text": "Costs Associated with the Extension of the Community Paramedicine Pilot Program.'\nAdopted. [560-40]\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(17-257) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a First Amendment to a Lease and\nAuthorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the\nTerms of a First Amendment to the Lease Agreement with Advanced Roofing Services,\nInc. a California Corporation, for Building 612 Located at 1450 Viking Street at Alameda\nPoint. Introduced. [In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),\nthis project is Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c)\n-\nExisting Facilities.]\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there are any other perspective lessees\ninterested in the building.\nAndrew Schmieder, Cushman and Wakefield, responded in the negative; stated the\nbuilding is currently occupied by the tenant and is not being marketed.\nIn\nresponse to Councilmember Matarrese inquiry, the Assistant Community\nDevelopment Director stated the building is not being marketed as a business retention\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 5, "text": "strategy; Building 612 is in the Enterprise Area; short term leases are being done to\nprovide a consistent revenue stream and to maintain tenants in small buildings.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the building will be marketed after 24\nmonths.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the Enterprise Zone is\nmarketed in its entirety as a packet; short term tenants are kept so by the time the\ndeveloper is ready to move forward, the tenant can be eased out of the building.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the $2,500 rent is the going rate for a 4,000 square\nfoot building at Alameda Point, to which Mr. Schmieder responded in the affirmative;\nstated the rent has been increased 6%.\nMayor Spencer moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*17-258) Recommendation to Accept Status Report on Tidal Canal Project Phase I and\nProvide Direction to Staff on Moving Forward with Phase II and Phase III. Accepted.\nThe Assistant City Attorney gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the height of the fence which is proposed to be\nconstructed around the bulkhead, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the\nstandard height is six feet; the proposed fencing would be for safety and would not\nobstruct the view.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the\nstrategy is to treat everyone the same with two exceptions; one property on the west\nside added landscaping and private asphalt, reducing the pathway to five feet wide; the\nCity proposes to retain the existing improvement under a license agreement; the second\nexception is the property which added a pool and stairs.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the plan is to add fencing for the remaining\nthree properties, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative;\nstated there is the exception for the property on the eastern most point with the pool and\nstairs, which is encroaching on City land; the costs to remove the encroachments are\nprohibitive, so staff is considering offering a leasing arrangement.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired why the City issued a permit for the pool to be built if the\nproperty is City-owned.\nThe City Planner responded permits and the project were never finaled; the City\ninspector stated there is a problem and the project cannot move forward.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated that she reviewed the project permit history which showed two\ninspectors made multiple approvals, but at the end the project was denied.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City has had the property surveyed, to which the\nAssistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated as part of Phase 1, the area\nwas surveyed as recently as last year by the RJA Firm.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what type of survey was performed, to which the Assistant\nCity Attorney responded RJA Firm did a public record search, pulled title reports on\nevery single parcel, and conducted an aerial survey to get existing conditions.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the firm review permits from the past as part of the\nsurvey, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the City is planning to make the property\nowners pay the same price, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the\naffirmative; stated even though the public access easement will be recorded on title, the\nproperty owners would have full use of the lot until the City decides to build a public\ndock; there is no dimunition of the price.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the pool lot is the most encroaching, to\nwhich the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; continued the\npresentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when was the last conversation with\nhomeowners, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded that he spoke with some\nhomeowners last week and other homeowners in December.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney only met\nwith one homeowner between December and tonight's Council meeting.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated that he informed\nproperty owners that he would follow up with them after getting direction from Council\ntonight.\nMayor Spencer inquired what is the width of the public access sidewalk with the\nlandscaping, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded approximately five feet.\nMayor Spencer stated the Recreation and Park Commission discussed allowing small\nwater craft access, such as a kayak; inquired about the public access points and\nwhether the five foot width would be sufficient for kayaks.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the access points were initially put in as a view\ncorridor; stated the City is proposing changing the use to allow water access.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 7, "text": "The Recreation and Parks Director stated the Recreation and Parks Commission voted\n18 feet would be adequate to launch small water craft and that one public dock would\nsuffice.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Recreation and Parks Director stated the\nRecreation and Parks Commission did not want to allow large motorized water craft at\nthe access point; the Division of Boat and Waterways requires boat trailers to have\nturnarounds; having large motorized vessels would be unsafe; there should be a full\npublic process.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry on fencing material, the Assistant City Attorney\nstated staff plans to work with the neighbors; depending on the choices, the City will\nwork with the property owners on the materials and safety parameters.\nMayor Spencer inquired what the City has done to protect its rights along the public\naccess point, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded he does not know what\nefforts the City has made since 1912, but efforts have not been sufficient to prevent\nencroachments.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City has put up its own fencing, to which the\nAssistant City Attorney responded in the negative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City has made efforts to ask homeowners to\nremove the encroachments, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded he does not\nknow of any efforts at this time.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated staff\nproposed an 18 foot public access easement dock; the Planning Board recommended\n35 feet to cover entire bulb out; new information revealed the bulb out on the land is 60\nfeet, but the Planning Board still recommends 35 feet.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Planner stated staff is asking if Council\nwants to proceed in subdividing the land to sell the parcel.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the matter has been discussed at a Planning Board\nmeeting and shared with the public, to which the City Planner responded in the\nnegative; stated the matter has not yet been to the Planning Board but will go in the\nfuture.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Planner stated staff thought the City\nonly owned 35 feet of the total 60 feet; one homeowner has 10 feet, the other\nhomeowner has 15 feet, and the City owns the 35 feet in between; the Planning Board\nlogic was the easement should be the 35 feet owned by the City.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 8, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City owns more than 35 feet, to which the City\nPlanner responded in the affirmative; stated as of right now, the property has not been\nsubdivided.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the original intent of the bulb outs was\nto provide a view corridor, not public access, to which the City Planner responded the\noriginal intent is not known; it is an assumption since no access was made in the last\n100 years.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how did the point of having bulb outs come\nabout if there are no recorded decisions by the City Council about the purpose of the\npathways.\nThe City Planner responded that he can only speculate since the tentative map was\npresented to Council in 1912; given the shape of the bulb outs, the assumption is the\npublic could walk to the bulb out to view the water.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Planner stated the\nthought was that the Alameda community should have access to a public dock if\nproperty owners will have access to the water from their personal docks; the Planning\nBoard wanted to make sure there is enough space for public access and to reserve the\nspace in the future.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the\nrevelation that the City owns 60 feet of the property came about as an evolution; the\ninitial purpose of the project was to facilitate the transfer the property from the federal\ngovernment to private citizens; addressing the issues regarding the public access was\nnot part of the project; when public access issues came up, the initial purpose was\nhijacked; staff made a decision to deal with the issues that have been festering while\nworking through the property transfer issue; the public access area was not federal\nproperty, it was always the City's property; selling the property to the adjacent property\nowners would prevent the community from having a public dock.\nVice Mayor Vella stated she is concerned about numbers changing; the City needs to\nshow the work and that the numbers are consistent and correct; she would like to see\nmore information on how staff arrived at the numbers; it is not clear to the general\npublic.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry about whether the City issued fence permits,\nthe Assistant City Attorney stated fences under six feet do not require permits; he does\nnot know if a permit was issued for a retaining wall higher than six feet.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether any walls were permitted, to which the Assistant City\nAttorney responded the City has not done permit histories except for the bulb out\nproperty.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated that he thinks the fences are over six feet; expressed\nconcern that the City did not know the numbers.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether permits were issued for decks that extend into the bulb\nout, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the City did not a full permit history;\nstaff wanted to get direction from Council first.\nMayor Spencer stated the home at 3267 Fernside Avenue has permits, including\nsigned-off for a seawall, dock replacement, and gangway which cost over $15,000; their\nimprovements extend into the proposed 35 feet; inquired whether the City will ask the\nhomeowner to remove the portion which extends into the 35 feet, or if the homeowner\nwill receive their money back.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded nothing will happen until Council decides on if\nand where a public dock should be; stated staff hopes the property owners obtained\nproper permits; staff is proposing to sell property owners the submerged property\nbehind their homes.\nExpressed concern over the underuse of the public access points: John Knox White,\nAlameda.\nStated that she opposes Phase Il as proposed; requested the City to repair the\npavement and close the public access path from dusk to dawn; outlined safety\nconcerns: Bethany Polentz, Adjacent Property Owner.\nDiscussed the best uses for the public access points; stated a boat launch would not be\nthe best use; the Council has one shot to the project right: Serge Wilson, Alameda.\nStated most neighbors have responsible access to the water, she does not want to deny\npublic access; it is the City's responsibility to keep the area safe and clean: Mary Anne\nOstrom, Alameda.\nSubmitted information; stated public access is hidden and limited; urged Council not to\ngo further and develop something negative: Jan Schlesinger, Alameda.\nStated expanding bulbouts will attract more nuisance and enforcement is difficult; the\ncost of putting docks in will be enormous and needs to be Americans with Disabilities\nAct (ADA) compliant: Former Councilmember Mike Gorman, Waterfront Homeowners\nAssociation (WHOA) Executive Committee.\nStated the purpose of the pathways 104 years ago was to be able to get access to the\nwater in times of disaster; Phase 2 needs to be revamped dramatically and is unsafe:\nKevin Peterson, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 10, "text": "Urged Council to approach the issue with a good lens, not just a literal view of a 100\nyear old map; encouraged Council to find an appropriate and safe solution: Ezra\nRoizen, Alameda.\nStated the City has an opportunity to have a public asset on the East End, urged\nCouncil to keep options open and not privatize public amenities: Brian McGuire,\nAlameda.\nStated Phase 1 was a convergence of cooperation; the property it is an odd asset,\nurged Council to be thoughtful in consideration and find a defensible, safe solution: Seth\nHamalian, WHOA.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Assistant City Attorney did an awesome job on\nthe project; the City Attorney inherited the 100 year old mess; completing 91 transfers\nand only being held up by six is amazing; homeowners provided great testimony; she\nhears the concerns about safety; making the area safe and sensible is important; there\nare more sophisticated problems; she is glad the Police Department installed cameras.\nThe Police Chief stated he has been in contact with residents who have shared emails\nwith photos and videos of incidents occurring in the area; regardless of where anyone is\non this issue, no one should tolerate what happens there; calls to the Department\nincrease with the increase of the homeless population; further stated the Department\ncan do a better job of policing the area.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there needs to be some balance in whatever\nCouncil decides; the title needs to be wrapped up; Council has a decision to make\nabout where to expend City resources and keep residents safe at the same time; she is\ndistressed at the condition of the area and has immediate safety concerns; making the\narea safe should happen sooner rather than later.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the City has looked into temporary fencing to address\nthe safety issue; funds are already allocated to take the immediate step.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports pursuing the temporary fencing.\nCouncilmember Oddie concurred with Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft; stated\n\"reasonable and feasible options\" is a good starting point; each of the six homeowners\nmay require a unique solution; he would like the City have more outreach with\nhomeowners for a custom solution; he is concerned about safety; assertion of the City's\nproperty rights should be backed up with responsibility; safety is the priority.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he supports the recommendation on direction to\nrepair the pavement; the center access can be driven into, which is not a good situation;\nproblems need addressing; staff needs to lock down the use; practical constraints\nshould be considered; the review on how the public can access the water should be\nbroadened; there are practical steps between the wants and what can be done; the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 11, "text": "immediate hazard to public needs to be remedied; for everything else, there is no rush;\nthe project should be done right.\nVice Mayor Vella stated there needs to be a conversation based on the usable space\nand the feasibility of the options; the public is asking for a better boat launch; there is\nopportunity to ensure the public is able to launch on both sides of Island; she was\nappalled by the conditions; liability is a concern; trash receptacles are needed; signage\nneeds to be improved; there should be reflective lighting at the end and signage on the\ngate; homeowners did not know the location of the property line; the City has not done\ndue diligence over the years to protect the property; she would like to preserve water\naccess; there is not enough information to give advice on the matter at this point;\nconversations need to happen before potential uses are decided; resources should not\nbe spent if a plan is not feasible.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would recommend accelerating Phase 3\nso Council can make a good recommendation sooner rather than later.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether City land which has been determined to be\nencroached upon would have a license fee, to which the City Manager responded in the\naffirmative; stated the land will not be gifted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the license fees would be a nice revenue stream as\nlong as the fees are not constrained by law.\nMayor Spencer stated that she does not think the City has done anything to show the\npublic the land is owned by the City; the City is responsible for knowing its land; inquired\nwhether access to the water would be feasible for fire support.\nThe Fire Chief responded supplying water from the bulb out areas would be difficult; the\nfiretrucks would not be able to get close enough to the water to pump it out; using fire\nboats from the water would only require alleyway access and a long hose.\nMayor Spencer stated that she does not think an ADA dock is possible, but she is\nhappy to receive feedback it; she does not want to do Phase 3; the pavement needs to\nbe maintained and improved signage for the three pathways is needed; a gate needs to\nbe added to the top access; she does not want to change the use of the public access\npoints; she would agree to an 18 foot area if it is large enough; she does not want to\nencourage large water craft use.\nThe City Manager summarized Council's direction; stated staff would not be able to\ncommit tonight but will return with a short term solution; for the long term, staff can get\ninput from neighbors and bring back a feasibility analysis with more detail and design\ncomponents.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese concurred with the City Manager; stated that he does not\nwant staff to have total say on the use before coming back to Council; having a\nRecreation and Park Commission recommendation is appropriate.\nMayor Spencer concurred with Councilmember Matarrese.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he concurs with Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's\nsuggestion to move Phase 3 ahead; he would like to know the practicality of building a\npublic dock before the City locks the six property owners into an arrangement.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like staff to meet with homeowners\nrather than making them appear at a public meeting.\nVice Mayor Vella stated if the Recreation and Park Commission desires to build a public\ndock, she hopes the discussion is not just limited to the three access points.\nThe Assistant City Attorney concurred with Vice Mayor Vella; stated other locations\nshould be included in the analysis; reiterated Council's direction for the immediate\naction which includes safety fencing, repaving work, and signage.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated no fencing\nwill be added on bulb outs on the land side; only safety fencing would be installed until\nfurther direction from Council.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 9:51 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:59 p.m.\n(17-259) Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would be willing to continue hearing\nall the remaining items if it meant going past 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated two of the referrals are the same, with support from\nthree Councilmembers and he thinks Council will get through the referrals quickly.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated he is amenable to going past 11:00 p.m. if Council hears\nthe Fire Department items [paragraph no. 17-256] , the Cross Alameda Trail [paragraph\nno. 17-263], Bird Safe Buildings referrals [paragraph no. 17-266 and 17-267 and\nShoreline Park referral [paragraph no. 17-268]; and postpone establishing priorities\n[paragraph no. 17-264].\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would not support not hearing establishing\npriorities [paragraph no. 17-264 tonight.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of hearing the Cross Alameda Trail [paragraph\nno. 17-263], Bird Safe Buildings referrals [paragraph no. 17-266 and 17-267 and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 13, "text": "Shoreline Park referral [paragraph no. 17-268 after 10:30 p.m.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nThe motion requires four affirmative votes, so it FAILED by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers\nEzzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2.\n***\n(17-260) Resolution No.15257, \"Approving Workforce Changes to Add Three New\nPositions to the Fire Department Fire Prevention Bureau Effective May 28, 2017: One\nFire Captain and Two Fire Inspectors at the Firefighter or Apparatus Operator Rank for\nan Annual Cost of $799,206. Adopted; and\n(17-260A) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager or Designee to Negotiate\nand Execute an Agreement for the Purchase of Three Staff Vehicles and Miscellaneous\nEquipment in an Amount Not to Exceed $188,684 to Support the Reinstatement of the\nFire Prevention Bureau.\nThe Fire Chief gave a Power Point presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Fire Chief stated a total of\n3.65 inspections are done per day per inspector.\n***\n(17-261) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider remaining items\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the balance of the regular\nagenda and not hearing the referrals.\nThe motion failed for lack of second.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of hearing the balance of the regular\nagenda and the Bird Safe Buildings referrals [paragraph no. 17-266 and 17-267].\nVice Mayor Vella amended the motion to include Shoreline Park referral [paragraph no.\n17-268].\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nThe motion requires four affirmative votes, so it FAILED by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Oddie, and Vice Mayor Vella - 3. Noes:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Spencer - 2.\nMayor Spencer moved approval of finishing the current item and hearing the Cross\nAlameda Trail [paragraph no. 17-263], Bird Safe Buildings referrals [paragraph no. 17-\n266 and 17-267 and Shoreline Park referral [paragraph no. 17-268].\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 14, "text": "The motion failed for lack of second.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of finishing the Fire items [paragraph no.\n17-256 and the Cross Alameda Trail [paragraph no. 17-263\nThe motion failed for lack of second.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of hearing the balance of the regular\nagenda, Bird Safe Buildings referrals [paragraph no. 17-266 and 17-267 and Shoreline\nPark referral [paragraph no. 17-268\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nThe motion requires four affirmative votes, so it FAILED by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Matarrese and Vice Mayor Vella - 2. Noes: Councilmembers\nEzzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 3.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated he would like to get through at least three referrals.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of hearing the Cross Alameda Trail [paragraph no.\n17-263], Bird Safe Buildings referrals [paragraph no. 17-266 and 17-267 and Shoreline\nPark referral [paragraph no. 17-268].\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nThe motion requires four affirmative votes, so it FAILED by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie - 2.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of hearing all remaining items.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Fire Chief stated fire\nsuppression staff would still be used; there are approximately seven inspections per\nmonth; distribution of the workload will change to have fair coverage and enhance\ncompletion rates; additionally, a new software program with email alerts will be\nimplemented to track inspection progress.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City of Oakland had some communication\nissues affecting a recent fire incident because departments used different software\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 15, "text": "which did not communicate; inquired how Alameda would make sure relevant\ndepartments could communicate with each other.\nThe Fire Chief responded the Fire Department is cross referencing with other\ndepartments to make sure nothing is missed; staff is reviewing all business licenses to\nmake sure inspections are done, and assigning inspection dates so none are missed;\nthe Building Department uses the same program for tracking permits; if an issue arises,\nthe Fire Department will be alerted and can get involved.\nIn response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the Fire Chief stated the two\nagencies using non-sworn staff as Fire Inspectors are Oakland and Fremont.\nIn response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the Fire Chief stated the City has a\nnon-sworn Code Compliance Officer and Fire Inspections are done by fire companies.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether adding two Fire Inspector positions is enough to get\nthrough the back log, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated having\ntwo inspectors and an additional Fire Captain would help the Code Compliance Officer\ndo follow-up; he is concerned about not having a full-time Fire Marshall; he will come\nback to Council after the end of the Community Paramedic program to make a request\nfor a management position.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired how much Alameda receives in Ground Emergency Medical\nTransportation (GEMT) funds, to which the Fire Chief responded $275,000 per year on\naverage; he expects to continue to ask for reimbursements.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what does the City lose as a community by not having a\nfull time Fire Marshall, to which the Fire Chief responded the City loses the\nmanagement aspect; there is no one to explain policy and give direction; the position is\nimportant enough that it should be stand alone; a lot of technical information comes\nfrom the position; the City would be missing out on regional meetings a Fire Marshall\nwould attend to be informed of fire prevention and new codes.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether not having a Fire Marshall or other resources\nwould impact public events such as the Park Street festival, to which the Fire Chief\nresponded things would be slowed down; the department is not functioning at the\nhighest level; it will be more difficult when the Department loses the Chief from the\nCommunity Paramedic funding.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there was a huge cost overrun with the EOC funding due\nto lack of management of the IT aspect; inquired what the City would lose by not having\nmanagement expertise.\nThe Fire Chief responded the City would lose direct management of several things,\nincluding the Fire Prevention Bureau, quality control, quality assurances and quality\nimprovement; a framework will be pieced together but making sure the plan is working\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 16, "text": "will be difficult without management to oversee it; the immediate objective is to complete\nthe back-log of fire inspections; the bigger picture is that it will be harder to expand and\nbe fully functional without management.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the inspection fees are the same for a non-sworn and\nsworn inspector, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is an independent analysis of other agencies\nwhich indicate whether or not sworn or non-sworn positions is a good way of conducting\nthe inspections.\nThe City Manager responded the Human Resources Department contacted the other\ncities; using non-sworn inspectors works for the City of Fremont, but they have a bigger\ndepartment; there are more factors which determine whether cities select sworn or non-\nsworn inspectors.\nThe Fire Chief stated non-sworn Fire Inspectors do not have training or equipment and\ncannot be sent to an emergency.\nMayor Spencer stated nine Fire Fighters live in Alameda, which is 10% of the total;\nother cities require Fire Fighters to live in the city in which they work.\nThe City Attorney stated the resident status was a requirement in the past; the\nrequirement is not legal.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Manager stated Alameda does not\nrequire Fire Fighters live in a close radius to the City; having such a requirement would\ncut back on the quality of candidates.\nMayor Spencer inquired what is the difference in the estimated post-employment costs\nof sworn versus non-sworn.\nThe Human Resources Director responded there is no additional cost; everything,\nincluding benefits, is included in the total salaries.\nMayor Spencer stated additional revenue is estimated at $400,000 per year; inquired\nwhere is the difference going to come from.\nThe City Manager responded $170,000 from the General Fund would make up the\ndifference.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there would be no encroachment into General Fund\nwith a non-sworn inspector, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nStated the matter should be part of a budget discussion; the City is facing pension costs\nand retiree medical costs; if the matter is not addressed in this budget cycle, each city\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 17, "text": "department will be asked to do more with less in the next budget cycle: Kevin Kennedy,\nCity Treasurer.\nStated public safety is an area where he would not want to do more with less;\nprotecting citizens is important; he supports staff; urged Council to bring back the Fire\nPrevention program: John Knox White, Alameda.\nStated there is a disconnect between sworn staff and non-sworn staff; having sworn\ninspectors creates a professional development tract; urged Council not to make the\nsame mistakes as Oakland; stated Fire Inspectors need to be sworn staff: Dan\nRobertson, City of Oakland Fire Fighter.\n***\n(17-262) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would only support\nconsidering the current item.\nThe motion was not amended.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.\nStated that he supports the item; he is surprised that a large number of buildings are not\nbeing inspected; it is the City's job to make sure there is staff and resources for\ninspections; urged support for the safety and betterment of Alameda: David Mitchell,\nAlameda.\nStated his concern turned to worry for the safety of family and community; urged\nCouncil to restore a sworn Fire Prevention Bureau: Dennis Popalardo, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the issue is important; she is mindful of the budget\nbut the issue cannot wait for a two year budget; she wants to make sure the City can\npay for firefighters in their retirements; the City spends money to keep the community\nsafe; Alameda has older structures; she would like funds to go to having buildings\ninspected; safety is the highest priority.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Alameda is not immune to a Ghostship [Oakland fire]\nsituation; cutting corners puts Firefighters and citizens lives in danger; the number one\npriority is to keep the community safe; he is concerned about lack of management and\nnot having a Fire Marshall; the EOC budget overrun was an example of a failure of not\nhaving management in place; the Police and Fire Departments should not be run like a\nbusiness; he fully supports the funding.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 18, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated there is a risk of losing lives when buildings are not\ninspected; he is not convinced that Fire Inspectors have to be sworn; the City of\nFremont is doing a fine job with non-sworn inspectors; other factors led to the Ghostship\nsituation which goes beyond not having a sworn Inspector; he supports non-sworn staff.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she thinks for less than a few hundred dollars, the City is\ngetting double the bang for the buck; Alameda is already short-staffed; if the money is\ngoing to be spent, Alameda should have the extra bodies to backfill in emergencies;\nrisks are greater when under-staffed; having a Firefighter out injured does not help\nstaffing; funds generated by the Department counteract costs; she is concerned that the\nDepartment is not being brought back to full capacity and will be doing more with less;\nshe does not want to outsource and would like to see sworn officers; she is ready to\nsupport the recommendation.\nMayor Spencer stated that she does not support the recommendation; Firefighters have\nto go through comprehensive training to fight fires and she does not want Firefighters to\ndo inspections; she supports hiring inspectors to do inspections; inquired what is the\ncurrent dollar amount of unfunded liabilities, to which the Assistant City Manager\nresponded $113 million.\nMayor Spencer stated the City could hire more non-sworn to do inspections and make\nsure Firefighters can fight fires; she does not want to confuse the two; Alameda has\nover 3,000 overdue inspections; Council's number one priority is safety; the City not\nhaving a long term financial plan is a serious problem.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated he would like to bifurcate the motion.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution approving workforce changes\nto add three new positions to the Fire Department Fire Prevention Bureau effective May\n28, 2017: One Fire Captain and Two Fire Inspectors at the Firefighter or Apparatus\nOperator Rank for an annual cost of $799,206.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Vella - 3. Noes: Councilmember\nMatarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of authorizing the City Manager or\ndesignee to negotiate and execute an agreement for the purchase of three staff vehicles\nand miscellaneous equipment in an amount not to exceed $188,684 to support the\nreinstatement of the Fire Prevention Bureau; inquired whether the funds would come\nfrom the current Fire Department budget.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 19, "text": "vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes:\nMayor Spencer - 1.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 11:18 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:23 p.m.\n(17-263) Recommendation to Approve Design Concept for Cross Alameda Trail Gap\nClosure on Atlantic Avenue between Webster Street and Constitution Way.\nThe Transportation Planner gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like better graphics of the street\nlevel renderings; she cannot approve a plan without seeing better visuals.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated staff could have renderings prepared and come back to\nCouncil in June.\nThe Transportation Planner continued the presentation.\nStated the project is holding up two other projects; urged support of the plan: John Knox\nWhite, Alameda.\nStated Council does not need to delay the project; there was a unanimous vote from the\nTransportation Commission; the plan is good and is ready to move forward; delaying the\nplan holds up key pieces of Cross Alameda Trail: Brian McGuire, Alameda.\nStated 200 seniors live at Independence Plaza; she appreciates improved safety on\nboth ends of major junctions; urged support of the plan: Vanessa Cooper, Alameda\nHousing Authority.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she supports the midblock crossing adjacent to senior\nhousing; she is concerned that the Transportation Commission did not include a\nmidblock crossing; the crossing improves a lot of safety aspects of multi-modal\ntransportation.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, the Base Reuse Director stated staff talked to\nthe property owner about removing the left turn into Starbucks and they were not\nsupportive; the Transportation Commission can still explore the issue.\nVice Mayor Vella stated she would want a bigger conversation with the property owner;\nit is a safety issue.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated staff has talked to the property owners a number of\ntimes; the property owners were adamant about prohibiting access.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 20, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a median where pedestrians\ncan get half way across the midblock crossing, to which the Transportation Planner\nresponded in the negative; stated the proposed design is four feet wide but the\nrequirement for ADA is six feet.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see a midblock crossing; such\ncrossing would be a good benefit for residents of Independence Plaza and the shopping\narea; it is necessary for Council to approve the plan in concept and review the design\nagain; suggested going forward with the plan and come back with details; stated\nAlameda has engineers that could answer the number of questions raised.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like to move forward; he understands the\nneed to have better information; he is prepared to support the project.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports the project but needs clearer\ndrawings; she is fine with the midblock crossing; engineers will come back with more\ninformation; she would like to know more that can be done for bicyclists and pedestrians\nto reduce traffic impacts.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Transportation Planner stated there are two\nlanes in each direction that enter and widen out to three lanes at the Webster Street\nintersection, Constitution Avenue and Atlantic Avenue.\nMayor Spencer stated having a midblock crossing is critical; the Housing Authority and\nIndependence Plaza is very inaccessible at the moment; that she would not support the\nrecommendation without a mid-block crossing and a left turn in the Housing Authority;\nshe would like to see better illustrations.\nThe City Manager suggested Council approve the concept.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the design concept for Cross Alameda Trail\nGap Closure on Atlantic Avenue between Webster Street and Constitution Way, with a\nmid-block crossing design option.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote:\nCouncilmembers Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 3. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft\nand Mayor Spencer - 2.\n(17-264) Recommendation to Approve the City Council's Priorities Established at the\nFebruary 17, 2017 Priority Setting Workshop, the Referral Tracking Table, the Revised\nForm for Submitting City Council Referrals and a Process for Ranking/Addressing New\nReferrals.\nThe City Manager made a presentation.\nStated Council referrals deserve more consideration; the current referral process is a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 21, "text": "disservice to the Council and citizens; the chart was difficult to read; a better way to\npresent the information to the public needs to be considered: Dorothy Freeman,\nAlameda.\nStated the chart is missing a timeline; urged Council to work harder to engage the\npublic: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated once a referral is voted on it is no longer a referral;\nCouncil should be consistent; an estimate is needed as to when a referral would be\ndone; the form needs to have a suggested priority level; suggested having the\nEisenhower chart on the form; the understanding of referrals is that a Councilmember is\nnot soliciting action other than to have Council agree before expending staff time.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated including the Eisenhower chart on the form is appropriate;\nhe is concerned that there is no schedule or timeline; the community would benefit from\na schedule that is regularly updated; having a schedule gives more notice, is more\ntransparent, and would be an effective planning tool.\nThe City Manager outlined detail on the spreadsheet tracking referrals; including the\nHousing and Homeless, FAAS, and Zoning referrals.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the original date of the referral is missing from the chart;\nsuggested changing \"next steps' to \"projected timeline' and including the original referral\ndirection date to keep track; stated having a suggested priority level is helpful; she\nhopes there is discussion about the reality of how much time the referrals are going to\ntake; expanding upon the upcoming items list and making it public would be helpful.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft urged Council to give the new referral form a try; the\nform places focus on what the Councilmember is recommending and helps prioritize.\nMayor Spencer stated that she does not like the form and it is not transparent; she\nprefers to make it clear to the public that Council may be able to take action that night or\ngive direction; the tracker chart is not useable and has way too small print; the tracker\nchart needs a timeline and consideration of how much time all items would take to get\ndone, not just high priority.\nThe City Manager reminded Council agendas are packed; stated there is lots of work\nwith limited staff; referrals could be piled on but other items will suffer; the City does not\nhave the budget to add additional staff to handle non-critical referrals and does not\nrecommend doing so.\nMayor Spencer stated the referrals are critical and some could have significant impact\non the lives of residents.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there needs to be a balance; the Council is the\npolicymaking body and has the right to bring the referrals, which will not slow down.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 22, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the way things have been done is not yielding the\nresults hoped for; staff has to come close to a workable format in order to move items\nforward.\nVice Mayor Vella stated Council is willing to take a first step and be cognizant of\na\ntimeline.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of revising the City Council referral form to include\npriority and urgency, as well as distinguish whether or not the referral is asking for\nCouncil action; [the tracking form] is to include the dates when the referral was brought,\nwhen Council took action, and a general timeline for all items.\nCouncilmembers Oddie seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmember Oddie, Vice Mayor Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(17-265) The City Manager announced the hands across Alameda and Coastal Clean\nUp at Crab Cove as part of Earth Day.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(17-266) Consider Adopting a \"Bird-Safe Buildings\" Ordinance. (Vice Mayor Vella and\nCouncilmember Oddie) [Not heard March 21 or April 4, 2017]\nCouncil agreed to address the two bird safe building referrals together.\nVice Mayor Vella made brief comments regarding the referral.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the purpose of the referral is to establish an ordinance\nthat people have to follow to make buildings bird safe.\nStated that she chose to live in Alameda because of its wildlife friendly reputation; urged\nCouncil to adopt a bird safe ordinance: Marjorie Powell, Alameda.\nStated it is time for Alameda to establish a bird safe ordinance; urged Council to adopt\nthe referral: Linda Carloni, Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Reserve (FAWR).\nStated that she strongly endorses a bird safe ordinance; an ordinance establishes\nAlameda's credentials as a bird safe city and would encourage other cities to do the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 23, "text": "same: Patricia Gannon, FAWR.\nStated there are many development plans in Alameda; establishing a bird safe\nordinance is urgent to ensure there is environmentally safe development: Cindy\nMargulis, Golden Gate Audubon Society.\nStated that she is excited that Alameda is joining the list of communities that are\nconcerned about bird safe buildings: Leora Feeney, FAWR.\nDiscussed the importance of landscaping and trees for people who live near well-lit\nbuildings: Pat Lamborn, Alameda.\nMayor Spencer stated that she submitted a separate referral based on the Golden Gate\nAudubon Society's standards for wildlife safety, not just bird safe; she would like a more\ncomprehensive effort for protecting Alameda's wildlife, including artificial lighting and\ntrees.\nVic Mayor Vella stated the sample draft ordinance could work and includes the\nimportance of landscaping and future related standards, atriums, greenhouses, and\nsome of the lighting aspects; she hopes the ordinance addresses some of Mayor\nSpencer's concerns; she would like the effort to be comprehensive as well, not just\npiece-meal.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the draft Ordinance from the City of Richmond addresses\nthe concerns; he would like Alameda to be celebrate being recognized for the effort;\nAlameda has done a lot of work to protect wildlife; Councilmember Matarrese took the\nlead on protecting the seals; taking the next step is important.\nMayor Spencer stated that she wants to make sure Council is agreeable to combining\nthe referrals for a comprehensive effort.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council should place the appropriate priority level\non the referral; the matter will go to the City Planner for review; she would like to know\nall the considerations.\nIn response to the City Manager's inquiry, Councilmember Matarrese stated the referral\nis a medium priority similar to the lighting ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of giving direction to consider a\ncomprehensive bird friendly ordinance with protections for other wildlife.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated while staff is reviewing the\napplicable criteria, the referral could be dependent on, and combined with, other\nprojects or work efforts.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 24, "text": "On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(17-267) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings for\nCouncil to Adopt.\nConsidered as part of the first bird-safe buildings referral. [paragraph no. 17-266].\n(17-268) Consider Directing Staff to Prepare a Report on the City of Alameda\nAcquiring/Taking Title to the Uncompleted Strip of Shoreline Park next to Harbor Bay\nParkway.\nMayor Spencer made comments regarding the referral.\nStated Council should clarify that the property is park land: Pat Lamborn, Alameda.\nUrged Council to move forward with the referral: Cindy Margulis, Golden Gate Audubon\nSociety.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the referral.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the adjacent property owner should pay for\ndeveloping the park land; she does not support the City taking on the responsibility that\nrightfully belongs to a developer.\nThe City Attorney stated preliminary research of the documents and the strip of land\nindicates it is already to be dedicated to the City; there is a public access easement\nacross the property; the idea is that when a developer develops the adjacent property,\nthe City typically requires the developer to do some initial improvements to the strip of\nland, which is why the City has not yet taken the property.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the original referral regarding the issue is to direct\nstaff to bring back a report on the request; he would like to see a report on what steps\nneed to be taken to acquire the property; Council does not need to decide tonight\nwhether to take the property, but he would just like to know what are the considerations;\na report would help make the determination.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether the strip of land is the only consideration or if\nCouncil is interested in a broader piece of property, to which Mayor Spencer responded\njust the strip.\nThe City Manager inquired whether Council would like cost estimates to purchase, to\nwhich Mayor Spencer responded she would like to know the status; stated she\nunderstands the City could take title.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 25, "text": "status of the property.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the report could be rolled into a presentation if a new\napplication is submitted, rather than asking staff to address it now.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is concerned the City having a right to the strip of land\nwas not made clear at the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC).\nVice Mayor Vella stated the City Attorney's interpretation of the property rights appears\nto be different than the developer's interpretation; it would be helpful to get guidance.\nMayor Spencer stated that she does not want to wait until the developer submits an\napplication; she would like the issue to be resolved so the Council and community know\nwhether the property is the City's and how much it would cost.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City Attorney has information readily available, to\nwhich the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated staff has started pulling\ntogether the documents so an analysis of the City's rights could be done relatively\nquickly.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated he is concerned taking action on the referral so quickly\nwould bump other referrals; he does not think the referral has a higher priority than\nsome others.\nCouncilmember Matarrese restated the motion to approve the referral, including\nreceiving a report on the current status of the property and whether a future developer\nwould still have to provide improvements as a public benefit if the City takes title to the\nproperty.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry regarding the referral's priority,\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the referral is medium priority; he does not think the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 26, "text": "issue is more important than the homelessness, mix used, and social development\nreferrals, which he deems are frontline issues.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.\nMayor Spencer moved approval of adjourning the meeting and bringing back the\nremaining referrals.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of tabling the remaining referrals.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion for reconsideration should be made by a\nCouncilmember who voted against it.\nThe City Attorney stated a motion for reconsideration would need to come from a\nCouncilmember who would be changing their position.\nIn response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the City Attorney stated if Council\nvotes to table the remaining items, the agenda is finished and Council can adjourn the\nmeeting.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has kept the Housing Authority Executive\nDirector waiting all evening; she would like Council to hear the Housing Authority item\n[paragraph no. 17-269].\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the Housing Authority referral\n[paragraph no. 17-269 and tabling the Climate Protection [paragraph no. 17-270 and\nRules of Order [paragraph no. 17-271 referrals.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(17-269) Consider Directing Staff to Present the Steps for City Council to Return to Its\nRole as Board of Commissioners for the City of Alameda Housing Authority.\nCouncilmember Matarrese made comments regarding the referral.\nThe Housing Authority (HA) Executive Director made comments regarding the referral.\nMayor Spencer inquired why the HA was initially separated from the City, to which the\nHA Executive Director responded the 2012 separation was done to put a fiscal and\nreputational firewall in place; stated the HA assets, which have large capital needs,\ncould be dealt with solely by the HA and not impacted by the City constraints.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like to hear more about the plan; there is no\naccountability to an elected official; the buck stops at Council with housing and rent\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n25\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 27, "text": "issues; not having control over issues is difficult; having the discussion is important; he\nsupports the referral.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not support Council returning to its\nrole as Board of Commissioners for the HA; doing so would mean Council has the\npotential of placing the HA Section 8 funds in jeopardy; she feels the remedy is extreme\nwith a lot of dangerous repercussions.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she has concerns about the fiscal impacts; Council could\naddress some of the rent program issues in connection with the services contract; she\nwould prefer to maintain the basic relationship instead of taking the bigger step and\nplacing funds in jeopardy.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like to have more discussion on the referral;\nsuggested a presentation from the HA to help Council understand how issues are being\naddressed; Council could reconsider after receiving more information; she does not\nsupport the referral at this point.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter is not agendized and Council cannot\nprovide direction beyond directing staff to present steps as the referral states.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Matarrese stated modifying his\nreferral would no longer make it a referral; suggested the next Rent Review Advisory\nCommission (RRAC) report or the management of rental complaints be expanded to\ninclude the status of the HA projects.\nThe HA Executive Director stated there are privacy issues which may prevent disclosing\ntenant information; she would only be able to inform Council of general, statistical\ninformation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese withdrew the referral.\n(17-270) Consider Directing Staff to Review and Update Alameda's 2008 Local Action\nPlan for Climate Protection. Not heard.\n(17-271) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Rules of Order for City Council Agendas\nand Meetings. Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 1:53 a.m.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n26\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-04-18", "page": 28, "text": "Respectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n27\nApril 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf"}